beowulf02195 wrote...
@ Terror_K
I agree and disagree with many of your views in multiple ways.
The inventory thing is true, I missed it too, and not because ME1 inventory was great, but because an inventory screen helps paint the classic RPG picture. I only bow to BioWare's decision because, as many people have discovered, admitted and argued over, they have made a very NOT classical RPG in this game series, good or bad, (my personal opinions are being intentionally omitted) it is very atypical.
There is a certain truth to this. But ME2 is far more of a typical shooter now than ME1 was a typical RPG or a typical shooter. Its gone from something that was fairly unique and different into basically becoming another shooter, albeit with a more cinematic and story-driven nature. As its been described in the past by some people, it's basically "Gears of War with dialogue" now. Now, something doesn't necessarily need to be original or fresh to be good, Dragon Age Origins for example did an excellent job of being an old-school RPG that was a little more cinematic than most previous entries in the genre. But if one is designing and RPG game I would like to think it had some depth to it instead of just trying to make things as simple as possible and scraping by in the definition. It's like BioWare purposefully made ME2 to only
just be an RPG because they're not today's gamers' cup of tea, which wouldn't have been such a sin if they clearly weren't trying to make something a bit more substantial in the first place, as the original game shows.
The supposed "unpolished" feel of certain aspects of the game could be for a multitude of reasons, one of which being that they are side-quests intended to give the character opportunities to make decisions and perform actions to specifically do one or more of the following in preperation for furthering the main storyline: 1} Increase paragon/renegade scores to unlock further conversation options. 2} Have a slight source of out-of-mission income, however small, of both credits and experience. 3} Generally explore team member options through off-context storytelling and information gathering that may or may not have a part to play in the third installment of the game. Also, it is in the nature of any decent roleplaying game mother company to not simply stick to "the mission", instead, to provide small excursions in the form of quests and exploration which may or may not impact the actual game itself, thus creating an immersive feel to the "world" the character is a part of. If everything you did in ME was directly related to the same main plot, it would be an action/adventure game, much along the lines of Zelda and Metroid, rather than a roleplaying game (i.e. creating your own experience for in-depth playthrough)
Not sure what the point here you're trying to make is, since I pretty much fully agree with what you said and it doesn't seem to contradict what I said at all, or have anything to do with it. Which is why I'm a little lost here. Unless you misunderstood what my problems with the N7 missions were? *shrug*
Also, I do not think you should stop quoting this "age old argument". Whether people like it or not, this is feedback, and feedback is how information nd opinions are gathered and collected for use in furthering this industry we all love so much.
Which is why I'm doing it. I really don't care about changing the opinions of a bunch of forumites who I don't really even know... I just want to make it clear to BioWare that I'm unhappy with them for what they did with ME2 and why. And, as nasty as this sounds, I personally think they could use a swift kick to the crotch over some of these issues. Their games have had flaws in the past, but this is the first time I really think they screwed up as opposed to making genuine mistakes or not quite pulling things off in the past. I find it ironic whenever people say "quality over quantity" when it comes to ME2 because I quite honestly find ME2 to be lacking in quality
and quantity.
8/10 isn't too bad, and I think it is actually an overall fan average for this game, however, I fail to see how the game itself lacks depth. The small customizations serve the RPG experience as a whole, giving players their own Shephard, their own team, and even, to a certain extent, their own Normandy. The only supposed lack of depth I might be able to see is how easy the main plot is to complete. But then, we all know what rushing off and finishing the game gets you (or more accurately, your poor crew) don't we? Where it might be true that the depth issue could have been mended if the customization issue had been left to the side, I reiterate my Zelda/Metroid comparison, a world which has depth and intrigue and a literal month's long storyline, but static characters with no differentiation in them between two seperate players/gamers is no better than going to your local library and grabbing a good book. Except, of course, that in Mass Effect, the book will read itself to you.
It lacks depth because there's so much that's been cut out from the original, which compared to most RPG's wasn't particularly deep in the first place. Pretty much all the non-combat skills have been cut and thus so has any non-combat gameplay beyond conversations, shooting is no longer stat-based, the classes have less variation, there's no loot and no surprises, there's about half as much skills overall, there's no customisation for weapons, the weapons themselves are severely limited, upgrades are completely linear, planet exploration is completely gone, XP is no longer event-based and just a lump sum, there's about half as many sidequests, we can't customise our squaddies, the game almost practically plays itself for you, etc.
With all due respect, no need to level up? No need to invest in your team mates to fit in with your class? The same gun from level 1 until level 30? Terror, are you playing on Casual or what? Now I agree with your input on modding and upgrading your weapons, even FF XIII made some sort of attempt at that, but your team mates' abilities (as well as your own for that matter) prove very much the life savers later on and at higher difficulties.
Leveling up just boosts your combat powers, but with the way the weapons are designed you could just stick to those and stick to the same weapon you got from the start and still win. Yes, it would be harder, but it requires no thought or planning or effort on the part of the player. Even if one didn't accept that, any player can just level-up willy-nilly withought thought and succeed and the weapons you come across are pretty much inevitable while playing the game, meaning there's no effort in finding them. Same goes for upgrading them. Its all so simple and distilled that the player will never get punished for making a bad choice. Good RPG's make you plan carefully, choose to invest your points wisely, choose the best weapons for the best job and to suit your class, etc. Mass Effect 2 fails to do this entirely.
How well the game has done? Of course most of the buyers have been either ME1 players or BioWare fans, how do you think they find out about the release? You would like it if it weren't trying to be a Mass Effect game? (I enjoyed the Massive fan part though, lol) What does that mean though? You would like it if you didn't have the first one to compare it to? Hm...
What I basically meant is that ME1 set a certain tone and precedent, but ME2 came along and basically spat on it. ME1 tried to be something but when it didn't quite work instead trying to make it work BioWare just turned it into something else. This is especially an issue when dealing with a trilogy, where we're essentially have to have one game that are essentially the same split into three parts rather than three separate games. But ME2 is closer to being Gears of War or Army of Two than it is being like the original Mass Effect, at least gameplay wise. It should at least stick to its roots, and what I meant by saying that it would be better or not so bad if it was something new was that it wouldn't have a predecessor it needs to stay true to. I like the original Mass Effect, and I also like Unreal Tournament, which happens to be my favourite game of all time (yes... my favourite game is an all-action shooter and not an RPG. Try not to look shocked). But that doesn't mean I'll like it when Mass Effect 2 becomes more like Unreal Tournament.
In closing, you cannot indefinitely say that Mass Effect 2 is a bad RPG, which to remind us all, stands for roleplaying game. A game in which players are encouraged to role play, to experiment with or experience (a situation or viewpoint) by playing a role. I fail to see how Mass Effect, 1 or 2, fails to meet this requirement and how it can therefore be labeled, other than in your own opinion and not based on actual fact, logic or technicality, a BAD RPG.
P.S. If they are saying it is a great game based on their opinions, why are you saying it is a non-satisfactory one? Based on your own opinions? Yes, that is what I thought.
I'm saying its a bad RPG because of the lack of statistical and mechanical aspects associated with RPGs, not because of the roleplaying or story-driven aspects of them (which, aside from numerous ME1 import disappointments, ME2 is fantastic at). ME2 is a bad and/or unsatisfactory RPG because its so shallow in this regard, with most of the aspects from the first game either being streamlined, overly simplified or cut entirely, merely to make the game more accessible. When I play an RPG I want some complexity in my game and I want to have to do some of the things myself and I want customisation, options and depth. I don't want the game watered down to its base principles only and have my choices made for me or taken away from me entirely, and then a few dead olive branches offered in a vein attempt to try and make things alright. If I wanted a TPS I'd play Gears of War, but I want to play Mass Effect which is supposed to be an RPG. Yes, ME2 still
is and RPG by definition, but it seems to be trying its darnedest not to be.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
